Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?
Quote from: Nomadd on 08/05/2009 12:52 am Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?It wasn't stated in the article, but in an earlier version it was stated that SRB parachutes and cameras would also be removed. In this case, the SRBs would be spinning and free falling all the way down. I doubt there will be anything left worth picking up once they hit the ocean.
Where would the PLM be berthed, and would tying up a CBM position be a problem?
"STS-133 will also see a configuration change to its Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). In order to eliminate as much weight as possible to maximize cargo upmass on this mission, the STS-133 SRBs will have their water impact structures and foam, cosmetic paint, water impact foam, and Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Nozzle Severance System removed."Well looks like we will have ugly disposable boosters for this mission, in the vain interest of aesthetics I dope this is not the last to fly, would be terrible to have an ugly duckling for the last flight.....
I wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM. Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance.
Quote from: Alpha Control on 08/05/2009 04:23 amI wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM. Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance. If Node-3, as apparently planned right now, is located at starboard of Node-1, all 4 open docking ports of Node-3 will have clearing issues (truss, radiators etc.). Node-3 nadir is already occupied by Cupola. If you relocated cupola to another position (not sure if that's possible from a clearance issue), you might be able to get the PLM attached to Node-3 nadir.In any event, I believe what was been talked about is Node 2 zenith or nadir (with nadir being a problem due to it being the HTV/COTS-vehicle docking port and Node 2 zenith being exposed the most to MMOD.
What about Node-1 nadir? It's not occupied and, as far as I'm aware, unobstructed.
Quote from: Ben E on 08/05/2009 12:44 pmWhat about Node-1 nadir? It's not occupied and, as far as I'm aware, unobstructed.That will be used for HTV and Dragon. Zenith is open, however.
Node 1 (6 ports): forward: Destiny Lab: aft: Zarya: zenith:blocked by Z1 Truss: starboard: Quest: port: Node 3 - which could be relocated to nadir if required: nadir: PMA-3 - which could be relocated to port if required (?)Node 2 (6 ports): forward: PMA-2: aft: Destiny: zenith: free: starboard: Columbus: port: Kibo: nadir: free - but required for birthing of HTV/COTS vehiclesNode 3 (6 ports) (connected to Node 1 port option): starboard: Node 1: port: free (blocked?): nadir: Cupola (?) : forward: free - but disabled (and blocked): aft: free - but disabled (and blocked): zenith: free - but disabled (blocked?)
Isn't Quest currently at Node-1 starboard? Although it's probably the same clearance issue, in terms of distance from the radiators.
My bet is Node 1 nadir (with PMA-3 somewhere at Node-3) or Node 2 zenith, in this order.AnalystPS: With enough time a Node-3 CBM could be enabled.
Node 3 (6 ports) (connected to Node 1 port option): starboard: Node 1: port: free (blocked?): nadir: Cupola (?) : forward: free - but disabled (and blocked): aft: free - but disabled (and blocked): zenith: free - but disabled (blocked?)
Quote from: Analyst on 08/05/2009 01:20 pmMy bet is Node 1 nadir (with PMA-3 somewhere at Node-3) or Node 2 zenith, in this order.AnalystPS: With enough time a Node-3 CBM could be enabled.Isn't PMA-3 not only a spare but is going to also be used by Orion at some point for docking? If you relocate it to Node 3, could you do a docking to it?
That's Phase II of weight reduction options. These that they just incorporated on Phase I. Were not at the point of ditching the SRBs in the Atlantic just yet. The way I read the presentations was that these are item on the SRBs that they can live without on the final mission -- which is why I including the thing about the extension at the end of the article.
They should just put Tranquility on Unity nadir, Cupola on Tranquility forward, PMA-3 on Tranquility nadir and PLM on Tranquility aft...I still don't get why they changed Tranquility from Unity nadir to port... it would be more symetrical for the ISS the first option...
Thoroughly enjoyed this article. I had questions about the actions planned for the SRB's, but they were answered above. One other thing that I found interesting and didn't know was the ability to remove cryo and GN2 tanks to increase upmass, referring to the passage in the article; “the STS-133 orbiter will have its 5th cryo tank set removed, as well as its 6th Gaseous Nitrogen tank, during turn-around processing in its Orbiter Processing Facility.” Fascinating. I assume that this is feasible given the planned (shorter) duration of the mission. Would I be correct in assuming that the “cryo tanks” refer to the LOX and LH2 fuel cell reactants? And are the GN2 tanks referred to the tanks that store the N2 for the mixed-gas atmosphere or the N2 used to purge the OMS after OMS burns? Thanks.
Can I ask a really stupid one (be kind!)? Why not:Node 3 on Node 2 forward (instead of PMA 2)
Quote from: glanmor05 on 08/05/2009 06:05 pmCan I ask a really stupid one (be kind!)? Why not:Node 3 on Node 2 forward (instead of PMA 2)Node 3 umbilicals run to Node 1 and are not long enough to reach Node 2. Could be extended but would be pain in ass. Running out of time (L-6 months) for major changes. Node 3 to Node 2 option would have to show significant benefits to justify this and it does not.
Is that a replacement radiator to the left and behind the cupola?
This is my first post here in ages. I just wanted to say that I really hope they decide to refit Donatello, as otherwise that module will be a complete waste of money. Seeing as it's more advanced than the other two, and it hasn't been in space before, it makes sense that this should be part of the ISS.
Quote from: ShuttleDiscovery on 08/29/2009 04:41 pmThis is my first post here in ages. I just wanted to say that I really hope they decide to refit Donatello, as otherwise that module will be a complete waste of money. Seeing as it's more advanced than the other two, and it hasn't been in space before, it makes sense that this should be part of the ISS.Says in this article , Raffaello:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8226309.stmWon't be the only wasted money though eh!
I think there is some older info here, or folks are misreading what is put in the charts. ET-94 can never be used for shuttle again. While it could be fixed up for flight as a tank at MAF, the programmatic cert costs for the orbiter and all its systems to fly an LWTank would be prohibitive.Chris wrote:Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122 The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option. (which did not include ET-94)Chris wrote:One recent addition to the STS-335 plans is to include a MPLM to the flight, which would be the first time a rescue mission would carry an actual payload.Every rescue mission currently being planned is carrying the actual payloads of the next flight.Chris wrote:However, this also allows for an opening cycle of evaluations aimed at turning STS-335 into STS-135. Adding another mission would only come via additional funding – most likely through approval to extend the shuttle manifest – though sources note at least one meeting has taken place, relating to STS-135 as an actual mission, within the past few weeks.The last LON has always been funded. When the MPLM was selected as the quickest and best way to rescue STS-133 there were some meetings to discuss what to call it. NASA will not fly without LON capability.There were some early discussions for weight saving mods to hardware, but the costs to recert the hardware were high. None of those SRB mods are being implemented.
Chris wrote:Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122 The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option. (which did not include ET-94)
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125? (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
Quote from: Sesquipedalian on 10/14/2009 02:46 amPossibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125? (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)I'm guessing that the additional APM (Ascent Performance Margin) available with a SLWT versus a LWT was utilized to provide the capability to haul additional payload mass to Hubble.
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
Quote from: C5C6 on 12/07/2009 11:25 amHi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/Node 3 Port
Is this officially confirmed?? If so, when would PMA-3 relocation take place??
2010January 21 - PMA-3 relocation from left port of Unity module to zenith port of Harmony module with SSRMS helpFebruary 15 - PMA-3 relocation from zenith port of Harmony module to left port of Tranquility module with SSRMS help